Re: [PATCH 2/5] ipc/mqueue.c: Update/document memory barriers

From: Manfred Spraul
Date: Fri Oct 11 2019 - 14:53:33 EST


On 10/11/19 6:55 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, Manfred Spraul wrote:

Update and document memory barriers for mqueue.c:
- ewp->state is read without any locks, thus READ_ONCE is required.

In general we relied on the barrier for not needing READ/WRITE_ONCE,
but I agree this scenario should be better documented with them.

After reading core-api/atomic_ops.rst:

> _ONCE() should be used. [...] Alternatively, you can place a barrier.

So both approaches are ok.

Let's follow the "should", i.e.: all operations on the ->state variables to READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE().

Then we have a standard, and since we can follow the "should", we should do that.

Similarly imo, the 'state' should also need them for write, even if
under the lock -- consistency and documentation, for example.

Ok, so let's convert everything to _ONCE. (assuming that my analysis below is incorrect)
In addition, I think it makes sense to encapsulate some of the
pipelined send/recv operations, that also can allow us to keep
the barrier comments in pipelined_send(), which I wonder why
you chose to remove. Something like so, before your changes:

I thought that the simple "memory barrier is provided" is enough, so I had removed the comment.


But you are right, there are two different scenarios:

1) thread already in another wake_q, wakeup happens immediately after the cmpxchg_relaxed().

This scenario is safe, due to the smp_mb__before_atomic() in wake_q_add()

2) thread woken up but e.g. a timeout, see ->state=STATE_READY, returns to user space, calls sys_exit.

This must not happen before get_task_struct acquired a reference.

And this appears to be unsafe: get_task_struct() is refcount_inc(), which is refcount_inc_checked(), which is according to lib/refcount.c fully unordered.

Thus: ->state=STATE_READY can execute before the refcount increase.

Thus: ->state=STATE_READY needs a smp_store_release(), correct?

diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
index 3d920ff15c80..be48c0ba92f7 100644
--- a/ipc/mqueue.c
+++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
@@ -918,17 +918,12 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(mq_unlink, const char __user *, u_name)
Â* The same algorithm is used for senders.
Â*/

-/* pipelined_send() - send a message directly to the task waiting in
- * sys_mq_timedreceive() (without inserting message into a queue).
- */
-static inline void pipelined_send(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
+static inline void __pipelined_op(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ struct mqueue_inode_info *info,
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ struct msg_msg *message,
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ struct ext_wait_queue *receiver)
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ struct ext_wait_queue *this)
{
-ÂÂÂ receiver->msg = message;
-ÂÂÂ list_del(&receiver->list);
-ÂÂÂ wake_q_add(wake_q, receiver->task);
+ÂÂÂ list_del(&this->list);
+ÂÂÂ wake_q_add(wake_q, this->task);
ÂÂÂÂ/*
ÂÂÂÂ * Rely on the implicit cmpxchg barrier from wake_q_add such
ÂÂÂÂ * that we can ensure that updating receiver->state is the last
@@ -937,7 +932,19 @@ static inline void pipelined_send(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
ÂÂÂÂ * yet, at that point we can later have a use-after-free
ÂÂÂÂ * condition and bogus wakeup.
ÂÂÂÂ */
-ÂÂÂ receiver->state = STATE_READY;
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ this->state = STATE_READY;
+}
+
+/* pipelined_send() - send a message directly to the task waiting in
+ * sys_mq_timedreceive() (without inserting message into a queue).
+ */
+static inline void pipelined_send(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ struct mqueue_inode_info *info,
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ struct msg_msg *message,
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ struct ext_wait_queue *receiver)
+{
+ÂÂÂ receiver->msg = message;
+ÂÂÂ __pipelined_op(wake_q, info, receiver);
}

/* pipelined_receive() - if there is task waiting in sys_mq_timedsend()
@@ -955,9 +962,7 @@ static inline void pipelined_receive(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
ÂÂÂÂif (msg_insert(sender->msg, info))
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return;

-ÂÂÂ list_del(&sender->list);
-ÂÂÂ wake_q_add(wake_q, sender->task);
-ÂÂÂ sender->state = STATE_READY;
+ÂÂÂ __pipelined_op(wake_q, info, sender);
}

static int do_mq_timedsend(mqd_t mqdes, const char __user *u_msg_ptr,

I would merge that into the series, ok?

--

ÂÂÂ Manfred